IN OUR OPINION

Editorial: Hays’ overreach

Published: Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 10:19 p.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 10:19 p.m.

Anyone who has lived in Florida for any amount of time knows the state's environment and economy go hand in hand, and it's as clear as a sunsplashed freshwater spring.

Yet over the years, our policymakers have tried time and again to make the two mutually exclusive, invariably putting economics ahead of a clean, healthy environment.

A bill introduced into the Florida Legislature by Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, Senate Bill 584, with an identical House version sponsored by freshman Rep. Charlie Stone, R-Ocala, is the latest such attempt. Hays, who said he introduced the bill because he was "astounded" to learn that more than one-fourth of Florida's land is owned by the federal, state or local governments, wants any future purchases of conservation lands to be offset with "an equal amount of public property not being held in conservation returned or sold at fair market value to the private sector."

Hays' bill would apply not only to state conservation land purchases, but county and city acquisitions as well. In other words, if Marion County or the cities of Ocala, Belleview or Dunnellon decided to buy a piece of land for a new park, under this legislation they would be forced to sell off another piece of land, no matter how necessary the conservation land purchase.

What Hays is "astounded" by is that 9.5 million acres of Florida's total 34.2 million acres are owned by the taxpayers. Of course, 1.5 million of that is the Everglades National Park and another 1.2 million is found in Florida's three national forests, including the 444,000-acre Ocala National Forest. More than 800,000 acres of Florida and some 100 miles of its shoreline make up the 160-plus state parks, and the state's two national seashores consume another 192,000 acres. The Marjorie Harris Carr Cross-Florida Greenway adds another 80,000 acres to the public land inventory.

So even before we account for courthouses and city halls, schools and colleges, jailhouses and libraries, not to mention highways and local roads, 40 percent of the so-called astounding amount of land we taxpayers own in Florida are in landmark tracts that protect our water supply, provide recrational space for untold billions of dollars worth of tourism and serve as buffers to runaway development along our coastlines and interior wildlands.

We understand Hays' concern. But as the long-running effort to secure Silver Springs from further degradation shows, the state of Florida is hardly reckless when it comes to acquiring new conservation lands. If anything, in the case of Silver Springs the state was too hesitant and too slow-acting, based on the amount of environmental damage it allowed to occur before stepping in.

As for the state dictating what local governments can and can't buy, we once again would remind the good senator that Florida is a home rule state and the Legislature has too often in recent years meddled in dictating what cities and counties can and cannot do.

Hays is chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on General Government, which decides state environmental spending. So what he says and wants regarding conservation lands matters mightily. We would just urge the senator to reconsider the strict limitations his bill would put on state and local governments. SB 584 appears to be a harsh and overreaching solution in search of a problem.

<p>Anyone who has lived in Florida for any amount of time knows the state's environment and economy go hand in hand, and it's as clear as a sunsplashed freshwater spring.</p><p>Yet over the years, our policymakers have tried time and again to make the two mutually exclusive, invariably putting economics ahead of a clean, healthy environment.</p><p>A bill introduced into the Florida Legislature by Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, Senate Bill 584, with an identical House version sponsored by freshman Rep. Charlie Stone, R-Ocala, is the latest such attempt. Hays, who said he introduced the bill because he was "astounded" to learn that more than one-fourth of Florida's land is owned by the federal, state or local governments, wants any future purchases of conservation lands to be offset with "an equal amount of public property not being held in conservation returned or sold at fair market value to the private sector."</p><p>Hays' bill would apply not only to state conservation land purchases, but county and city acquisitions as well. In other words, if Marion County or the cities of Ocala, Belleview or Dunnellon decided to buy a piece of land for a new park, under this legislation they would be forced to sell off another piece of land, no matter how necessary the conservation land purchase.</p><p>What Hays is "astounded" by is that 9.5 million acres of Florida's total 34.2 million acres are owned by the taxpayers. Of course, 1.5 million of that is the Everglades National Park and another 1.2 million is found in Florida's three national forests, including the 444,000-acre Ocala National Forest. More than 800,000 acres of Florida and some 100 miles of its shoreline make up the 160-plus state parks, and the state's two national seashores consume another 192,000 acres. The Marjorie Harris Carr Cross-Florida Greenway adds another 80,000 acres to the public land inventory.</p><p>So even before we account for courthouses and city halls, schools and colleges, jailhouses and libraries, not to mention highways and local roads, 40 percent of the so-called astounding amount of land we taxpayers own in Florida are in landmark tracts that protect our water supply, provide recrational space for untold billions of dollars worth of tourism and serve as buffers to runaway development along our coastlines and interior wildlands.</p><p>We understand Hays' concern. But as the long-running effort to secure Silver Springs from further degradation shows, the state of Florida is hardly reckless when it comes to acquiring new conservation lands. If anything, in the case of Silver Springs the state was too hesitant and too slow-acting, based on the amount of environmental damage it allowed to occur before stepping in.</p><p>As for the state dictating what local governments can and can't buy, we once again would remind the good senator that Florida is a home rule state and the Legislature has too often in recent years meddled in dictating what cities and counties can and cannot do.</p><p>Hays is chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on General Government, which decides state environmental spending. So what he says and wants regarding conservation lands matters mightily. We would just urge the senator to reconsider the strict limitations his bill would put on state and local governments. SB 584 appears to be a harsh and overreaching solution in search of a problem.</p>